“A cesspool of error”. That was how Pope Pius XII referred to Teilhard de Chardin’s theology. And in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis – though using rather more polite and roundabout language – Pius effectively condemned the French Jesuit’s theories, which had already been censored by both his bishop and the Vatican.
Teilhard accepted it all, telling his Jesuit Provincial that, although he wanted to keep thinking, “Rome may have its own reasons for judging that, in its present form, my concept of Christianity may be premature or incomplete … I am resolved to remain a child of obedience.”
But last week, the Pontifical Council for Culture voted to ask Pope Francis to remove the Vatican’s monitum (warning) against Teilhard’s writings. “We unanimously agreed,” the council statement read, “albeit some of his writings might be open to constructive criticism, his prophetic vision has been and is inspiring theologians and scientists.”
Teilhard drew on his work as a palaeontologist in a series of bestselling theological works. By the time of his death in 1955, he was famous for his theory of an “Omega Point”, mankind’s ultimate destination. Evolution, for Teilhard, was not just an explanation for biological diversity: it was the pattern of humanity’s upward movement, in which the Incarnation was a decisive moment.
Teilhard’s poetic style, and his evident belief that science was compatible with Catholic theology, were invigorating and many found he helped their faith. But the freewheeling style had its risks, which the Congregation of the Holy Office – later the Congregtion for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) – referred to in its 1962 condemnation. Teilhard’s works “abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.” Educators and religious superiors were asked to protect their charges against Teilhard’s errors or imprecisions.
In 1981 Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, the secretary of state, wrote some generous praise for Teilhard’s work and called him “a man possessed by Christ in the depths of his soul”. Teilhard had “a powerful poetic intuition of nature’s profound value”. The CDF were asked whether the Vatican line had changed. No, they said, the monitum still applied.
So what was wrong with Teilhard’s work? The 1962 statement was more laconic than the CDF’s detailed, and often devastating, condemnations of later theologians in the 1980s. But it is possible to guess what their complaints might have been. In Teilhard’s work, Christian doctrine sometimes seems to have taken second place to his scientific arguments.
Douglas Farrow, Professor of Christian Thought at McGill University, observes over email that Teilhard’s ideas are attractive to many because they promise human progress. But most, Prof Farrow says, “don’t read deeply enough to discover that, like the Gnostics, he holds creation to be a giant ‘cosmic bubble’ from which we must escape before it pops.”
The Gnostic heresy held that matter is itself evil, and some place Teilhard’s work within this tradition: Protestant theologian Karl Barth called Teilhard’s thought a “giant Gnostic snake”. For Teilhard, says Prof Farrow, “the risen Christ is no longer a particular man. He is rather the theanthropic power that is slowly transforming our crass and transient nature into a unified spiritual one, as once he turned water into wine.” This may explain why Pius XII thought Teilhard’s productions “a cesspool”.
Moreover, evolution has often been associated with some chillingly unChristian theories. If humanity is ascending from age to age, then the most “backward” become an inconvenient deadweight. Some of Teilhard’s remarks here are highly embarrassing to his more progressive fans. In Human Energy he hoped for “the development of the strong” rather than “the preservation of the weak”, and regretted that there were “technical” problems with “racial eugenics”.
Prof Farrow says: “The monitum was put in place for very good reasons, and must certainly not be lifted. To lift it would be to declare orthodoxy itself a bubble to be popped.”
In many ways, Teilhard now seems hopelessly dated. Scientists have generally kept him at arm’s length. Meanwhile, the philosophical debate over evolution has moved on, with even atheists such as Thomas Nagel suggesting that other theories are needed to explain phenomena such as consciousness.
It would be ironic if Teilhard’s return to official favour came just as his ideas disappeared into irrelevance.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.